Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Wait a minute--I thought you'd already said you'd said your last on this
issue!
There are a lot of interpretations of laws that a lot of people don't
agree with. Fortunately our legal system is designed to protect us from
them. A lot of perople (me and the legal system included) obviously feel
that your personal "ethics" in this circumstance aren't ethical.
--Michael
Austin wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:13:56 -0400From: Austin Franklin
>><austin@darkroom.com>
Subject:
>Whether you agree with it or not, that's the law in this country (the
>U.S.)---freelance workers who create something original, even ifsomeoneis
>compensating them for it, have the copyright to what was created,unless
>they are bonafide employees (with salary, benefits, and all that otherstuff
>that freelancers have to take care of themsleves, usually at a muchhigher
>cost than an organization has) of whoever they do the work for, orexpressly
>transfer all or part of their rights to the work. It's not unique to
>photography, either. Writers, musicians, and other creative types havethe
>same rights to the work they create as independents. The designexamplesyou
>give (computers, toasters) are generally performed by *employees* ofthe
>manufacturers, and copyright issues don't arise (although otherintellectual
>property issues often do). If a magazine or other publisher wants to
>purchase all the rights to the work they commission, they can try todoso,
>but it will cost more.
There is the copyright law it self, and there is the issue of who ownsthe
copyright. Two different issues. I know how the current law isgenerally
interpreted. I disagree with that interpretation. I do believe that
copyrights should be upheld, so that is not what I have an issue with. It
is beyond my belief of what is 'fair' (and ethical), how someone can lay
claim to work someone else gave them the idea for, supplied thematerials,
and paid them for. It is obviously a different case for most editorial
photographers, which I have no issue with, and I believe, why the lawhas
been interpreted that way. I do not believe a commercial photographer
should be given the same 'rights', in this regard, as editorial or some
other photography is.
Engineering contractors are used by most every technology company, andthe
contractors, routinely, do not retain ANY rights to their work, nor dothey
feel they should, and they are NOT employees in any way, shape or form.
They are freelance contractors, as is any freelance photographer.
Engineering can be equally as creative as any art is.
Imagine if you had to pay your landscaper every time you used your lawn.
You paid him to do the work, so why should you pay him for the use ofhis
work that he did FOR you after the fact? He was creative in performinghis
'art'. He was not an employee...yet no landscaper in the world asks for
'use royalties'...
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com